MEMO TEST 11 APRIL 2014
VRAAG 1 / QUESTION 1 [8]
• LW vir toepassing van (a) aanvalvereistes en (b) afweervereistes op die feite van Engelbrecht. Pas hul
een vir een toe.
• NB for application of (a) attack requirements and (d) defensive requirements to the facts of Engelbrecht.
Apply them one by one.
• problematiese vereistes / problematic requirements:
o tydstip van aanval (wat sê die Hof hieroor? Hoekom is die vereiste aan voldoen?)
time of attack (what does the Court day about this? Why was the requirement complied with?)
o was afweerhandeling nodig? (wat sê die Hof hieroor? Hoekom is die vereiste volgens die
meerderheid NIE aan voldoen nie?)
was the defensive conduct necessary? (what does the Court say about this? Why was the
requirement NOT complied with, according to the majority?)
VRAAG 2 / QUESTION 2
Vraag 1(a) / Question 1(a) [1]
• nie-patologiese (of gesonde) outomatisme / non-pathological (or sane) automatism
Vraag 1(b) / Question 2(b) [1]
• actio in libera causa (or actio libera in causa)
Vraag 1(c) / Question 2(c) [8]
• X se verweer is dat hy nie gehandel het in die oë van die reg / onwillekeurige handeling
X’s defence is that he didn’t act in the eyes of the law / involuntary conduct
• toepassing op die feite: optrede in ‘n toestand van bedwelming / “hallucination” is heel waarskynlik
gedrag waar die liggaamsbewegings nie deur die gees beheer word nie, en is daar daarom geen
aanspreeklikheid nie
application to the facts: doing something in a seriously intoxicated state / while hallucinating in all
likelihood amounts to bodily muscle movements that are not controlled by the conscious will, en is daar
geen aanspreekilikheid nie (Chretien)
• DUS sal X se verweer van gesonde outomatisme slaag tensy daar ‘n uitsondering op die reëlvan
toepassing is
• regsvraag: wanneer mag ‘n person aanspreeklik gehou word vir onwillekeurige optrede?
legal question: when may a person be held liable for involuntary conduct?
• antwoord: voorafgaande aanspreeklikheid
answer: prior/antecedent liability
• toepassing op die feite / application to facts
o voorafgaande willekeurige handeling? = die besluit om die sampioen te eet
prior voluntary conduct? = the decision to eat the mushroom
o gepaardgaande skuld (opset of nalatigheid)? – ja, optrede was laakbaar (nalatig) want X het
geweet dat hy vir Y moes sorg
accompanied by fault (intention or negligence)? – yes, conduct was blameworthy (negligent) in
that X knew he had to look after Y
o kousale verband tussen voorafgaande willekeurige handeling en skade-veroorsakende
onwillekeurige handeling? – ja, sou nie deur oopgelos het as dit nie was vir die inname vand die
sampioene nie
causal link between prior voluntary conduct and harm-causing involuntary conduct? – yes, would
not have left the door open if it wasn’t for the hallucinatory effect of the mushrooms
1
VRAAG 1 / QUESTION 1 [8]
• LW vir toepassing van (a) aanvalvereistes en (b) afweervereistes op die feite van Engelbrecht. Pas hul
een vir een toe.
• NB for application of (a) attack requirements and (d) defensive requirements to the facts of Engelbrecht.
Apply them one by one.
• problematiese vereistes / problematic requirements:
o tydstip van aanval (wat sê die Hof hieroor? Hoekom is die vereiste aan voldoen?)
time of attack (what does the Court day about this? Why was the requirement complied with?)
o was afweerhandeling nodig? (wat sê die Hof hieroor? Hoekom is die vereiste volgens die
meerderheid NIE aan voldoen nie?)
was the defensive conduct necessary? (what does the Court say about this? Why was the
requirement NOT complied with, according to the majority?)
VRAAG 2 / QUESTION 2
Vraag 1(a) / Question 1(a) [1]
• nie-patologiese (of gesonde) outomatisme / non-pathological (or sane) automatism
Vraag 1(b) / Question 2(b) [1]
• actio in libera causa (or actio libera in causa)
Vraag 1(c) / Question 2(c) [8]
• X se verweer is dat hy nie gehandel het in die oë van die reg / onwillekeurige handeling
X’s defence is that he didn’t act in the eyes of the law / involuntary conduct
• toepassing op die feite: optrede in ‘n toestand van bedwelming / “hallucination” is heel waarskynlik
gedrag waar die liggaamsbewegings nie deur die gees beheer word nie, en is daar daarom geen
aanspreeklikheid nie
application to the facts: doing something in a seriously intoxicated state / while hallucinating in all
likelihood amounts to bodily muscle movements that are not controlled by the conscious will, en is daar
geen aanspreekilikheid nie (Chretien)
• DUS sal X se verweer van gesonde outomatisme slaag tensy daar ‘n uitsondering op die reëlvan
toepassing is
• regsvraag: wanneer mag ‘n person aanspreeklik gehou word vir onwillekeurige optrede?
legal question: when may a person be held liable for involuntary conduct?
• antwoord: voorafgaande aanspreeklikheid
answer: prior/antecedent liability
• toepassing op die feite / application to facts
o voorafgaande willekeurige handeling? = die besluit om die sampioen te eet
prior voluntary conduct? = the decision to eat the mushroom
o gepaardgaande skuld (opset of nalatigheid)? – ja, optrede was laakbaar (nalatig) want X het
geweet dat hy vir Y moes sorg
accompanied by fault (intention or negligence)? – yes, conduct was blameworthy (negligent) in
that X knew he had to look after Y
o kousale verband tussen voorafgaande willekeurige handeling en skade-veroorsakende
onwillekeurige handeling? – ja, sou nie deur oopgelos het as dit nie was vir die inname vand die
sampioene nie
causal link between prior voluntary conduct and harm-causing involuntary conduct? – yes, would
not have left the door open if it wasn’t for the hallucinatory effect of the mushrooms
1
